women find it hard to move past the 1-3 drinks (or whatever) arbitrarily set levels
I agree with your posts and have been saying more or less the same (though I have been a lot less scientific 
). There is no 100% safe level of alcohol consumption, (for anyone, as it goes, not just women and not just pregnant women).
But, I will say that when I had sc1 in 2014, my GP and a paediatrician who treated dc1 when she was born, respectively said “we recommend no alcohol at all, but 1-2 units, once or twice a week, after the first trimester is probably fine” (it also said on the nhs website to limit alcohol to nothing or if you did drink then no more than 1-2 units once or twice a week) and “the odd glass of wine doesn’t count as drinking alcohol in pregnancy” 
.
By the time I was pregnant again in 2017, the advice on the nhs website and given to me by midwives was absolutely no alcohol and the bit about limiting to 1-2 units, once or twice a week had been removed from the nhs website. When I said at my booking in appointment that I’d had a few glasses of wine in the few weeks before I knew I was expecting (dc2 was a total surprise pregnancy) and was that something to be concerned about, the midwife said not at all, as long as I wasn’t caning it, (which I certainly wasn’t).
So I think it’s actually a little unfair to say “women” are resistant to this. It’s cultural imo and not just women, but HCPs including men. It is hardly surprising that this information is taking so long to be disseminated as I think it’s everyone who is resistant to the recommendations on alcohol. I get why. Life is short - not short enough for some miserable existences. So why bother following the guidelines that NOBODY should EVER consume alcohol if they want to be 100% safe.
Plus, I suspect various pieces of research contradict each other, so there are mixed messages.
But that doesn’t change the fact that, to be 100% safe, no alcohol at all is your only option.
I do think the tide is turning and people are thinking about drinking a lot less. When my mum had my siblings and me, (and also after), I think alcohol consumption was much higher and still is among a good portion of the people I know from her generation. Even when I was young, people aspired to be ladettes / pissheads. I think that, thankfully, is over and young people now are much more sensible.
I work in hospitality and the people who drink the least tend to be under 30. They also tend to have just gone for a run that morning etc if I get chatting to them.
Another thing re the NYT article; I would love to know how they identified FASD sufferers in the JAMA study. I’m not arguing with its findings, as I’m not a scientist / medic and I also agree, (as far as I’m allowed to hold an opinion, being a non scientific type ), with their recommendation to abstain completely in pregnancy. But from my layperson skim read of it and google, it seems there is no definitive test for FASD. These 222 children mainly already had identified behavioural problems and the researchers relied on interviews with mothers re alcohol consumption, or if they weren’t available, they interviewed relatives of the mother? I don’t know... does that not seem a bit iffy? Surely they could have lied either way. It seems like a lot of assumptions, which seems dangerous if a scientist wants to prove something. Can’t probe a negative etc.
Also, I don’t understand the formula, but what does the weighting thing mean? They found a certain number of children effected and assumed however many more were because... why? Genuine question as wish I bloody understood this stuff! It’s very interesting.